 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Southern v. Mississippi State Hospital9/11/2003
accrued and not after.). The laintiff does not plead a publishing of the alleged defamation nor that he has suffered a special harm from the alleged defamation so the allegation of defamation is not properly pled and as a matter of law should be dismissed. King v. Miss. Power & Light, 142 So.2d 222, 225 (Miss. 1962) (It is not sufficient to allege negligence as a mere conclusion of the pleader, but facts must be pleaded showing actual negligence.); McLemore v. McLemore, 163 So.2d 500 (Miss. 1935) (Ultimate essential facts upon which cause of action or affirmative defense thereto is based must be averred but not the items of evidence by which ultimate essential facts are to be proved.).
Under Mississippi aw, the laintiff's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress also is subject to a one-year statute of limitations under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act as well as Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-35.
Additionally, the court finds that the laintiff has not pled the necessary facts to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and that the laintiff failed to plead that the efendant doctors' individual actions caused him harm, but only that he sustained "...physical injuries, mental and emotional trauma..." as a result of the wrongful commitment. (King, supra, McLemore, supra) The laintiff has not pled any intentional act that would form the basis of a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress other than a false diagnosis of ipolar I isorder which would be based on his commitment for which the efendants are immune under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-1 (a), (d) and/or (m). (Mallery, supra). The court finds that this claims fails as a matter of law to be actionable under Mississippi law and should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the efendants' otion for ismissal is hereby granted.
DISCUSSION
. On appeal, Southern presents a convoluted argument. It is impossible to fully follow Southern's accusations raised on appeal. However, most of Southern's assignments of error appear to be various alleged constitutional violations under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Southern further appears to attempt to reference 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in his brief citing "Right Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.S. & 1883 & 1985 and 1986)." Southern raises these constitutional arguments for the first time on appeal. As such, these constitutional allegations are not properly before this Court. The role of an appellate court is not to be a fact finder but rather determine and apply the law to the facts determined by the trier of fact. In Bender v. North Meridian Mobile Home Park, 636 So.2d 385, 389 (Miss. 1994) (citing Patterson v. State, 594 So.2d 606, 609 (Miss. 1992)), this Court held that:
The rule that questions not raised in the lower court will not be reviewed on appeal is particularly true where constitutional questions are involved.
. A trial judge cannot be put in error on a matter not presented to him. See Bender. See also Mills v. Nichols, 467 So.2d 924, 931 (Miss. 1985). This Court has repeatedly held that issues not raised at trial cannot be raised on appeal. See Parker v. Mississippi Game and Fish Commission, 555 So.2d 725, 730 (Miss. 1989).
. Southern further contends that the trial court erred in not allowing him "to proceed with its claim for make-whole elief against vil." The only issue on appeal necessary for this Court's consideration is whether the trial court erred in dismissing Southern's complaint for failure to comply with the statute of limitation.
. From Southern's complaint it is difficult to determine what rel
Page 1 2 3 4 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|